Marnie Posted March 11, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 811 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 7,338 Content Per Day: 1.08 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/06/2005 Status: Offline Author Share Posted March 11, 2007 The Balance Science isn't liberal or conservative it is scientific. Surely you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubal-Cain Posted March 11, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 448 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1981 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Even if global warming isn't happening, is it a bad thing to slow down the destruction of the rain forests, to look for alternatives to lessen our use of fossil fuels, to protect the other life on the planet where we can? Are we supposed to be the stewrds of Gods creation or the defilers of it? Exactly. There is simply no reason not to find alternative energy sources and to protect the environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Hamburgers! Posted March 11, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,144 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 163 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/02/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1985 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Most scientists, but not all, are on the global warming bandwagon. Most scientists are on the evolution bandwagon, too. Does that make them right? See...science is what it is, and it is not my religion. It might not make them right, but it certaintly doesn't make them wrong. And I don't think it is necessarily a global warming "bandwagon", odds are they are all coming to similar conclusions because it might be the right one. Of course there are going to be dissentors, there will always be a group of people who believe in something else and attempt to back it up with evidence. Does that mean there are several truths? No, there's only one truth. There are still people who adamantly deny the theory that the earth is a globe, and they advocate a flat earth. They have their own reasons for it, and claim space photographs are conspiracy etc etc. They believe what they believe, but does that make them right? But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingwalker Posted March 11, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 970 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 11 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted March 11, 2007 "Global warming" is the exciting New (Socialist) Religion of our humanist age with Algore currently its CEO. What, one degree difference in 100-years? I'm verily impressed by "Global warming" religionists who rather calmly exercise such a hefty amount of pro-liberal censorship against all who may dare to disagree in any way, shape or form. Liberals censoring?! Why so many ipse dixits without BOTH sides addressing the issue? And might not the Creator-God have something at all to say about kind folk who may earnestly feel that this particular "Global Warming" religion might also be an attempt to further radically debilitate beleageured American taxpayers by stretching them on a procrustean bed of social innovation in order to bring everyone down to socialism's identical lower strata. Very interesting. Further, might not the One TRUE God of the universe, even Jesus Christ the Righteous One, be already in the process of preparing the creation for His 'New World Order' as HE sees fit in accordance with Revelation Chapters 21 & 22, etc.? Signs of the times are certainly pointing to the soon return of Jesus Christ in order to regenerate all of creation. Please: More information from BOTH sides in EQUAL-time reporting. http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com Has anyone heard of Velikovsky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Hamburgers! Posted March 11, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,144 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 163 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/02/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1985 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Oh Hamburgers! You reminded me of something that should be easily understood and easily accepted: If God exists and you don't believe = Hell If God exists and you do believe = Heaven If God doesn't exist and you don't believe = nothing happens If God doesn't exist and you do believe = nothing happens So, there is no downside to belief in God. Same with your example for global warming. The only downside is that corporations that pollute will have to spend some money at first to comply. Whether global warming is happening or not there is only an upside to polluting less and protecting more. Balance, yep I agree with you in that there really aren't too many downsides for stunting pollution! As to the God issue, I agree to a point, but the complexity of that situation is that there are so many other religions out there today. You could replace "God" with "Allah", or "Shiva" or any other religious head figure, and the result would be the same, to a degree. But if you use that as a means of deterrance to atheism, I totally agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Hamburgers! Posted March 11, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,144 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 163 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/02/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1985 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Whether global warming is happening or not there is only an upside to polluting less and protecting more. Isn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoMike Posted March 11, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 499 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/21/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/27/1964 Share Posted March 11, 2007 I'm guessing all you fretful global warming enthusiasts are all in you 20's or younger. See, I'm 43 and I remember high school science teaching us that the next big threat to our existence was global cooling. Nobody really bought that, so I guess they thought they'd try their hand at global warming. You know, this is far from a settled debate, yet so many of speak as if it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marnie Posted March 12, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 811 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 7,338 Content Per Day: 1.08 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/06/2005 Status: Offline Author Share Posted March 12, 2007 Has anyone heard of Velikovsky? Worlds in Collision, Earth in Upheaval, Mankind in Amnesia, Stargazers and Gravediggers. Some Worthyites need to read his works. Omigosh, I AM a geek! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingwalker Posted March 12, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 970 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 11 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted March 12, 2007 I'm guessing all you fretful global warming enthusiasts are all in you 20's or younger. See, I'm 43 and I remember high school science teaching us that the next big threat to our existence was global cooling. Nobody really bought that, so I guess they thought they'd try their hand at global warming. You know, this is far from a settled debate, yet so many of speak as if it is. Yes I remember this from school. However I am not 43 ........yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kittyjo Posted March 12, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 53 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 523 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/11/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted March 12, 2007 GreenHou$e Ga$$e$ ? Follow the money, honey... Hmm hmmm Hmm... How does that song go? Money makes the world go..... a-warming... Scientists threatened for 'climate denial' By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph Link Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community. They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions. Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change. One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming. "Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor. "I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal." Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored. Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges. "Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science." Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do." Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts